GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

General Motors’ decision to drop Apple CarPlay and Android Auto from future vehicles, citing safety and reliability concerns, is widely seen as a move to push drivers into its own Android-based “Ultifi” infotainment platform and subscription ecosystem. Commenters argue that carmakers have a long track record of building slow, buggy, short‑lived in‑car software, while phones and projection systems like CarPlay/Android Auto are faster, more familiar, and updated for years. Many say they will avoid GM vehicles over this, predicting the company will underestimate how loyal buyers are to their phone experience and overestimate willingness to pay ongoing fees for in-car features.

Consumer reaction & purchase intent

  • Many commenters say the absence of CarPlay/Android Auto is an automatic deal‑breaker; several explicitly rule out buying GM in future.
  • Some recount recent purchase decisions where CarPlay support was the tiebreaker between models or brands.
  • Others are more indifferent, saying they can live with Bluetooth + phone mount, but they appear to be a minority in this thread.

Perceived GM motives

  • GM’s “safety” rationale is widely dismissed as pretext.
  • Commenters repeatedly cite GM’s own public targets of $20–25B/year in software and subscription revenue (Ultifi) as the real driver.
  • People expect data collection, app stores, and paid features (e.g., heated seats, navigation, connectivity), and predict backlash, including from dealers and rental fleets.

Infotainment vs CarPlay/Android Auto

  • Broad consensus: most OEM infotainment is laggy, buggy, dated, and often abandoned after a few years.
  • CarPlay/Android Auto are generally viewed as far better, especially because:
    • The phone is faster and kept updated.
    • Users keep their own apps, accounts, and history across cars.
    • Projection is “dumb display” style; the car only needs to handle I/O.
  • Some report CarPlay/Android Auto bugs and connection issues, sometimes severe, but others say their implementations (often Mazda, VW, BMW) are rock solid.
  • A few prefer high‑quality OEM systems (notably BMW, Volvo, some Tesla, some VW) and find CarPlay/AA clunky or limited.

Safety, UX, and controls

  • Many argue the real safety problem is touchscreens, laggy UIs, and moving controls, not CarPlay/AA per se.
  • Physical knobs/buttons for HVAC, volume, wipers, lights, etc., and HUDs are praised as safer.
  • Some recount needing to fiddle with buggy Bluetooth/AA/CarPlay while driving, which they see as genuinely dangerous.
  • There is disagreement over whether voice control is a practical mitigation; non‑native speakers often find it unreliable.

Technical and long‑term concerns

  • Commenters note GM is basing its system on Android Automotive but disabling CarPlay/Android Auto despite other OEMs integrating both.
  • Widespread skepticism that traditional automakers can build and maintain good software; references to underpaid, outsourced teams and failed efforts at other OEMs.
  • Longevity is a major theme: CarPlay/AA can improve with new phones, whereas in‑car systems are often “abandonware” with outdated maps and no updates.

Workarounds & broader trends

  • Some suggest aftermarket head units or standalone CarPlay/AA screens, but modern integrated dashboards make this harder.
  • The move is framed as part of broader “enshittification” and subscription creep in cars; a few call for regulation limiting in‑car subscriptions or mandating UI responsiveness.